29/01/2017 Sunday Politics London

Donald Trump's travel ban on refugees and citizens of seven

mainly Muslim countries sparks protests at several US airports.

The President says "it's working out very nicely"

After getting too close to comfort for some to the US President,

Theresa May refuses to condemn his refugee ban despite being asked

about it three times at a press conference.

Should she have spoken out more strongly?

We'll ask former Ukip leader and Trump confidant Nigel Farage

what he makes of the travel ban and the Prime Minister's

In London this week, the mayor, Sadiq Khan,

has been coming under pressure to explain his fares freeze

and why it doesn't apply to everybody.

And with me, the best and brightest political

panel in the business - Steve Richards, Julia

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

It was soon after Theresa May left the White House on Friday that

Donald Trump signed the executive order banning citizens from seven

President Trump's 90-day ban covers Iran, Iraq,

Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Syria, from

where refugees are banned from until further notice.

Donald Trump's executive order also imposes a complete ban

on all refugees coming to the US for the next 120 days.

Mr Trump said that the ban would keep radical Islamic terrorists out

But the ban has sparked protests across the US,

as people affected and already in the air were detained

US laws have begun legal action to challenge the ban, which many

At a press conference in Ankara, Turkey, Theresa May was asked

about the refugee ban three times before giving this response...

Well, the United States is responsible for the United States'

The United Kingdom is responsible for the United Kingdom's policy

on refugees, and our policy on refugees is to have a number

of voluntary schemes to bring Syrian refugees into the country.

Downing Street later issued a statement saying:

This morning, the Treasury Minister, David Gauke, was asked why

Theresa May had refused to condemn the travel ban at yesterday's

The Prime Minister is not a shoot-from-the-hip

She wants to see the evidence, she wants

to understand precisely what the implications are.

She'd been in a series of very lengthy meetings with

President Erdogan, and she's someone who wants to see the briefing and

understand it, and then will respond to that.

I think there are times where, you know, there's always

pressure to respond within a news cycle and so on.

The important thing is, we are saying we disagree with it

We're joined now from North London by the Conservative

Should the Government in general and Theresa May in particular be more

vocal in their criticism of Donald Trump's travel bans? Well, as David

just said, it is obviously right that Theresa has now said this is an

appropriate and not something we agree with in our Government, but I

wish she had said something at the time, not least because it affects

our own citizens. One of our own MPs, Nadhim, for example, because it

is also a global crisis. She had clearly built an excellent with

Donald Trump -- she had built an excellent relationship with him, but

she could have been firmer. Mrs May hasn't said any word of criticism

about the travel bans. She refused to say anything three times in

Ankara, and it is merely an anonymous Downing Street

spokesperson that has issued the subsequent mild criticism. We have

not heard from the Prime Minister at all on this matter in terms of

criticism. No, but the spokesperson will be speaking with her blessing,

so it is clearly something she has acknowledged. As I said before, I

wish she had said something at the time. The global climate at the

moment is delicate and we need our leaders to work together to address

things like the refugee crisis. Potentially, this plays into the

hands of Daesh. It is absolutely not the right message. What would you

like the Prime Minister to say? As with any new relationship, it is

about testing the boundaries. They had clearly got on well, so she

should have felt braver to say something there and then. I would

have preferred her to say, for example, I need to talk to Donald

Trump about this. It is not something I support and I want to

understand why because I believe there is a better way to deal with

the terrorist threat. I would have liked her to suggest that she would

engage with him to do that. The president has instituted a 90 day

temporary ban on people coming from seven mainly Muslim majority

population countries. The seven were on President Obama's list of the

biggest terrorist threats to the United States. Mr Trump wants this

temporary ban until he puts tougher vetting procedures in place. What is

wrong with that? Because it appeared to me that it wasn't thought through

and it was affecting ordinary citizens and some British citizens.

It can't be right that a president in that position of power can

arbitrarily come up with executive powers like that. It has already

been challenged by his own courts. So it is not the considered approach

I want to see in a global leader. Who do you believe will be hurt by

this, given that there can be exceptions on a case-by-case basis?

I think potentially, our global reputation is going to be hurt by

this. I have been to the refugee camps in Europe myself. There are

desperate people trying to free persecution who will be hurt by

this. We are trying to heal the wounds in this country not only

because of Brexit. This is a time of coming together, not about saying it

is located discriminatory against race and religion in this way. Do

you believe that Mr Trump's state visit should go ahead? Well, he is

the leader of America, so it does need to go ahead and we need to work

with him. I believe Theresa has started in a positive manner was

that she just needs to continue in that vein. If he comes to our

country, he needs to respect the way we feel about things. But yes, he is

the president, so he does need to come to the UK. There is some debate

within Westminster as to where it is appropriate for him to speak to MPs,

but it is right that he comes. But if he does come on a state visit,

should he be granted what this country has always thought of as a

great honour, which is a joint address to both Houses of

Parliament? I haven't been an MP long enough to understand the

protocol of where is the right location for him to do that, but I

believe in the past, it has been the greatest leaders, when they have

achieved great things globally, it is Westminster Hall. But there are a

number of MPs saying that is not the most appropriate place and I am

inclined to agree. You don't think he should be accorded the privilege

of speaking to a joint session of Parliament? I think there are places

where he can do that, but Westminster Hall is not yet the

right place. Thank you for joining us.

Steve, within 24 hours, we have seen the difficulty of becoming Donald

Trump's best friend. On the one hand, it could have huge advantages,

particularly for a Brexit Britain. On the other hand, if you are going

to be his best friend, you don't have to give a running commentary on

every major thing he does. Yeah. We have learned a bit about Theresa

May, that when she has to produce a set piece speech which she has time

to prepare, she can get it totally right and sometimes more than right.

When she is faced with a fast-moving story, she is leaden footed and

can't think quickly on her feet. We know, did she regret not saying

more? Evidently she did, because we got a statement from the Downing

Street spokesperson saying more. So she can't think quickly. She's going

to have to think very quickly in response to some of the things he's

going to be doing, because she will be asked about it all the time. It

does highlight the wider danger that the assumption that the special

relationship is always a safe and fertile place to be has been proven

wrong before and I think it will be proven wrong big-time in this case.

You're shaking your head. I don't see why we are responsible for

American domestic policy. I am as appalled as the next person by what

Donald Trump has done. He said he was going to do this, which was why

I did not want Americans to vote for him. In fact, what he has

implemented is much less than what he said he would do when he was

campaigning. I have always felt that the campaigning Trump was the real

Trump. But what he has done is actually constitutional. He has the

executive power to issue this order. It is within the rules in terms of a

class of aliens deemed to be a risk to the United States. It is a 90 day

limited ban. The last president who did this was a Democrat president,

President Carter. He did it in the aftermath of the Iranian crisis.

Well, given the spate of terror attacks on American territory in

recent years, you could argue that he meant well. I don't agree with

Donald Trump. But have people from these countries that he has banned

been involved in terrorist attacks? That is the absurdity. He has not

included Egypt or Pakistan. But I don't remove everyone getting in

such a state about President Carter. The reality is that it is a legal

thing for him to do. I don't like it. But it is not my territory. It

is illegal, because they have been given a right to remain by a judge

in Brooklyn and another judging Alexandra. That is a different issue

for people who have already gone through the vetting. I don't agree

with this. However, I don't think it's reasonable to say that Theresa

May, because she wants to do a deal with Donald Trump, I don't give is

reasonable to say she have to agree with each of his policies. It is

nonsense. But the issue, Janan, is not whether she needs to agree with

him. The question is that she will be questioned about him all the time

now. And although these are matters of domestic policy, the refugee

policy is international. They speak to issues that affect Britain as

well, and I would suggest that she will not get away with this

anonymous statement from Downing Street. People will demand a she

says something on the record. She would get away with it indefinitely.

These situations will recur every time Donald Trump says or does

something contentious. She will be pressed to this associate her

administration from his. She will probably be in a better logistical

situation to do so. She has spent a big chunk of the past 72 hours in

the air. She flew from Washington to Ankara, than from Ankara to London.

We don't have Air Force One, we don't have those frictionless

communications with the ground. She would have been incommunicado for

large periods of time when this story was breaking. That doesn't

excuse the stiff response when she landed and issued a statement via

Downing Street. But during that delay, she did have a plausible

excuse. She has also got a much more tricky geopolitical situation than

many other world leaders. She has to strike a favourable trade deal with

the new US president. It is all very well people saying Justin Trudeau of

Canada was much more vociferous in his criticism of Donald Trump. He is

already in Nafta, he is not striking a new deal. For how long, we don't

know. Exactly, he's trying to stay in Nafta, but he is in a less tricky

situation than she is. Now, Theresa May's was the first

foreign leader to meet President Trump and the visit

was seen as quite a coup for the Prime Minister,

keen for a new trading relationship with the United States

in the wake of Brexit. The Prime Minister congratulated

the new US President for his "stunning election victory"

but might not have intended to be pictured walking

through the White House with him That picture of Donald Trump helping

Theresa May down the steps through the White House colonnade

will be the enduring image Mrs May said the President

told her he was "100% behind Nato". And for her part, the Prime Minister

said she would work hard to make sure other Nato countries

increased their defence spending It's been announced

that there will be a new trade negotiation agreement,

with high-level talks The hope is that this will lead

to a new trade deal between the two countries as soon as

Britain leaves the EU. Mr Trump said he believed "Brexit's

going to be a wonderful thing". On Russia, Theresa May made clear

to Donald Trump her continued

backing for sanctions. And following the controversy over

the President's support for torture, Mr Trump said he would defer

to his Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis, who argues

that the practice doesn't work. And I'm joined now by the former

Ukip leader, Nigel Farage. Do you agree with Mr Trump's

decision to ban Syrian refugees indefinitely from entering the

United States? I agree with the concept of democracy, a point which

appears to be missed by almost all commentators including the BBC. He

was elected to get tough and say he would do everything in his power to

protect America from infiltration by ISIS terrorists. There are seven

countries on that list. He's entitled to do this. I didn't ask if

he was entitled, I asked if agree with it. I do, because if you just

look at what's happening in France and Germany, if you look at Angela

Merkel's policy which was to allow virtually anyone in from anywhere,

look what it led to. You said in 2013 there's a responsibility on all

of us in the free west to help some of those people fleeing Syria

literally in fear of their lives. That's the Christian community in

virtually all of those country, it is almost too late because many have

been wiped out but if you are looking for a genuine definition of

a refugee, going back to 1951, it is someone in direct fear of

persecution of their life because of their race, religion or beliefs. But

you didn't talk about only Christians, and in January 2014 you

said, I seem to recall it was Ukip who started the debate on allowing

Syrian refugees, you seem to be in favour of allowing proper refugees

into this country. If they can be defined. Mr Trump won't let any in.

He is running American policy, not British policy. Since I made those

comments, we have had the Angela Merkel madness and I think Trump's

policy in many ways has been shaped by what Angela Merkel did. He is

fully entitled to do this, and as far as we are concerned in this

country, I would like to see extreme vetting. Since 9/11 can you name any

terrorist event in the United States that has involved refugees that have

been allowed into the country? No, in fact the terrorist events have

been US citizens radicalised. When you have a problem already, why

would you wish to add to it? I would remind you that of the eight people

that committed those atrocities in Paris, five of them had got into

Europe posing as refugees so there is an issue here. But perhaps not

for America because it has the most rigorous and lengthy screening

process in the world, especially for Syrians. You have to register with

the UN agency for refugees, which then recommend certain names to

America, they then go through biometric screening, database

screening, intelligent screenings, including four separate intelligence

agencies screening you. How more rigorous would you want it to be? It

is much more rigorous than we are or the rest of Europe. This is why we

have elections, so voters can make choices and they voted for Donald

Trump to become president and he said he would put bans in place and

then move towards extreme vetting. As far as the Syrians are concerned

he's made that decision but that's what he was voted in fourth. Since

you know him, you have met him, you are confident of his, I'm testing

you on the logic of it. Not that he's democratically elected, I'm not

asking about that, I'm trying to get the case, particularly since if you

take the seven countries of which the ban applies for 19 days, again,

of these seven countries, its citizens have not been involved in

terrorist attacks in the United States. It would be a mistake to say

it is just Muslim countries because the biggest Muslim countries in the

world have not been included in this. The point is they have made

this assessment, they bought themselves 90 days to think about

the policy. This is exactly what Trump's voters would have wanted him

to do. You said the President's rhetoric on immigrants made even you

feel very uncomfortable. Because he started by saying there was a total

ban, then amended it to say there would be vetting. My guess is that

what he will do is try to genuinely help Syrian people and he will be

talking about the creation of some safe zones. Let's see. He hasn't. We

will see. I suspect something like that is coming down the trap. What

advice did you give to the president and his advisers ahead of Theresa

May's visit? That I wanted us to talk about trade and to give the

Prime Minister the impression that actually... When she has been

surrounded by her whole career by civil servants and politicians who

say that everything takes five years or seven years or ten years, to make

it clear to the Prime Minister that if there is will, these things can

be done quickly. Isn't there a danger of a British Prime Minister

who has to deal with the president of the United States, to Ally

herself so closely with such an unpredictable, controversial

president, banning Muslims in certain ways and refugees, building

a war with Mexico, threatening trade was with other countries, thinking

of ending sanctions against Russia? I missing something here, what is

controversial about defending the Mexican border? Bill Clinton spoke

in tough terms, George Bush built six miles of fence, and because it

is Donald Trump there is uproar. So you think there is no risk of the

British by Minister being the best friend of this type of president? I

think there is no risk in putting together a trade deal and no risk in

her being the bridge between America and the rest of Nato to say to Nato

members if you don't pay your 2% he is serious so on those things there

is no risk at all. It was clear from her Lancaster house speech that the

Brexiteers in the Government had won pretty much every argument in terms

of negotiations to come out. What you want from her? She was very good

as Home Secretary, Tory party conferences, the Tory press saying

this was the new Thatcher and she failed. She even failed to control

immigration from outside the European Union so yes, it was a good

speech and for many on the Eurosceptic side of the argument, I

could scarcely believe that a British Prime Minister was saying

things which I had been roundly abused and vilified for. But I have

a feeling we may be in for a very frustrating 2017. The mood as I can

see it in Brussels is that negotiating with Britain is not a

priority, they are far more worried about Dutch elections, French

elections, German elections and possibly even Italian elections. I

worry that by the end of this year we may not have made much progress

and that's why the Trump visit suddenly things brings into focus.

What if by the middle of June, for argument 's sake, the Americans say

OK we reached this position with the British, compromised on the tough

stuff, food standards and things like that, we are ready to sign a

deal now, and Theresa May is to say actually Mr Juncker says I cannot

sign this until we leave. What will they do? They cannot throw us out,

we are living anyway. But everybody agrees you can talk about the deal,

maybe even do the heads of agreement but you cannot sign a treaty until

we have left the EU. Let me predict that at the end of this year we will

find a European Union who frankly don't want to talk to us and

countries around the world that want to get on and do things and that

will be the big tension for Mrs May over the course of this year. If the

Prime Minister is giving you everything you want on Brexit, you

agree that she's trying to get from your point of view the right things.

If she delivers on that and get Brexit on the terms of which you

approve, what's the point of Ukip? You could argue that about any

political party. If we have achieved the goal that we set out to achieve,

there are right now out there 4 million people who are Ukip

loyalists. They are delighted that by voting Ukip we got a referendum,

they will be even happier if they seek us leave the European Union and

I think there is still a gap in British politics for a party that

says it as it sees it, is not afraid by political correctness and is seen

to be on the side of the little people, and that's why, with the

Labour Party is fundamentally split, and it really is totally split over

this European question, I think Ukip is in good shape. That proposition

will be put to test at the Stoke Central by-election, one of Ukip's

best prospects in the country. Some people call it the capital of

Brexit. Labour is in chaos over Article 50, is picked a candidate to

fight Stoke Central who has described Brexit is a pile of notes.

If your successor, Paul Nuttall, cannot win the Stoke by-election,

there's not much hope for you, is there? I think he will. I've always

been told don't make predictions but I think he will win. If you doesn't

it will be tough, we will still have our 4 million loyalists, but if it

does we can actually see Labour are beatable in their heartlands and

Ukip will be off to the second big stage. Nigel Farage, thank you for

being with us. It's just gone 11.25,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 15 minutes, I'll

be talking to our political panel. First though, the Sunday

Politics where you are. We've got a shorter segment

for you this week, but ready to pack a lot in are our guests

Clive Efford, Labour MP for Eltham, and Chris Philp, Conservative MP

for Croydon South. Let's kick off with proposals

to devolve more financial powers to the Mayor

and the capital's boroughs. The suggestions are contained

in the second report of the London Finance

Commission, out this week. The first report, you may remember,

happened under Mayor Boris Johnson. This one's gone further in what it's

asking for: retention of income tax, maybe a share of VAT,

as well as control of property taxes And it recommends looking

at new taxes like a London tourism The commission chair

is Tony Travers. What we're recommending that's

different this time is that in the spirit of further devolution,

which the Government itself has been talking about,

the possibility of greater health devolution, skills and further

education, possibly more transport devolution and so on,

that you could begin not only to devolve property

taxes fully to London, but go beyond that and take part

of income tax or VAT and assign part That wouldn't mean that

London set the tax rates, but they would keep part

of the yield that was generated here and could therefore drive up

the yield by pursuing particular economic policies that would make

the City grow faster and therefore, London's boroughs and

the mayor would keep more Chris Philp, an awful lot of detail

in there but in principle anything you hear in there you wouldn't go

and do, or do you guard against any of this stuff? I think the idea of

devolution to London is a good idea, the one idea I didn't hear in the

film was the idea of letting London keep some of its business rates or

keep... What about some of the other ones income tax, VAT, it is getting

a portion of it that is raised in London. I think the idea is to have

a starting point that is fiscally neutral, and of some of these taxes

grow, meaning the economy is growing, they generate more

receipts, London would keep that growth as an incentive to London to

help London grow. For me, business rates is the most sensible one

because it is directly linked to encouraging business. The Chancellor

has said that in the budget coming up this spring, he will be making a

financial devolution offer to London and the Mayor of London, and I would

certainly support that, particularly in this area of business rates.

Clive Efford comedy you sign up to London has taken a big hit as a

result of the Government's changes but I think this discussion is

overdue because, I mean I know it is becoming a cliche to say in this

post Brexit period, but London is a huge shop window for Britain, and

what this report is talking about is giving London the resources to

generate that economic activity that is so vital for the whole country,

and not cutting off the important redistribution of taxes from the

economic activity that is concentrated around London and the

south-east. That is an important thing and it gives London the

devolved power to be able to make those decisions that will drive that

forwards. What do you say about tourism tax though, it dangerous? It

has to be looked up, but I would be very careful about how we do it

because we already have a very high rate of VAT compared with our

European competitors, and what we want is more tourism to come here. I

would look at possibly the Government on areas like hospitality

and things like that, looking to be more competitive with their European

partners, for instance it is half the rate in France, and bring more

tourism in. To be clear from you, Chris, do you believe the Government

is committed to going anywhere near some of this stuff? Stamp duty, for

instance, you know how much is raised in the capital, why isn't a

lot more of that retained? The list we have seen in the report is a very

long list, there is a balance to strike so I think it's right London

gets more control of its tax base, so things like business rates make

sense. If you push it too far, as Clive was saying, you impede the

Government's ability to help out other parts of the country, which do

need help. It would also impede London and the vital infrastructure.

He has said he will do this. You have to strike a balance between

letting London keep a larger proportion of taxes raised here.

That is right. But at the same time, you have to give the government

financial firepower to look after the whole of the UK. As a London MP,

I do want to see the balance shift towards London and I am confident

that we will see that in spring budget.

Talking of money, the mayor's budget proposals for next year

are currently being pored over at City Hall.

And there's been more talk about whether Sadiq Khan

was as clear as he might have been when he promised to freeze fares.

It did not, as it turned out, mean keeping all fares down,

as those using trains and travelcards have found out.

Back when he was running for office last year, this

I've got a fully funded package to freeze fares...

Over four years, so Londoners won't pay a penny more...

But after winning the keys to City Hall, he clarified

that the freeze would only apply to single fares and not travelcards.

Travelcards cover all public transport in London,

including suburban rail services, which are run by private companies

The fares on those lines are set by the Government and this

So, the mayor says, it's out of his hands.

That, however, is not necessarily the impression that people got

For example, in an article about his fares freeze,

In fact, it now turns out that even

Transport for London had assumed that meant a freeze in travelcards.

Details emerged last week, when the MayorWatch blog got hold

of a briefing document written by TfL, detailing how they had built

a travelcard freeze into their costings of the policy.

People did not accidentally come away with the impression

that Sadiq was talking about freezing travelcards.

He wrote an article in the Evening Standard

where he cited the rising cost of travelcards, the sacrifices

people needed to make on their food bills,

their ability to feed their kids, the pressure caused

He raised it repeatedly, the cost of travelcards

and the impact it had on Londoners' income and disposable income.

He engineered a situation where people thought that the fares

freeze would encompass all transport fares in London, and it doesn't.

And he's pulled away from it saying he didn't have the power,

and this document proves that not only did he have the power

and the money, but even people at Transport for London,

who are being paid to monitor his manifesto,

thought that a freeze on travelcards was something he had in mind.

And the fact that TfL had put a figure on the cost of freezing

travelcards suggests to some that despite by what the mayor says,

He could make that decision and choose to use his

transport funding to freeze or fares for Londoners.

He was given advice on how much it would cost and how

Questions have also been asked about a policy

that appears on Sadiq.London, Mr Khan's website from when he was

campaigning for office. It clearly says that bus fares would not be

frozen in his first year in office, but cut, and that hasn't happened.

In fact, that's not in the manifesto.

I think that was in a sort of discussion paper

When the mayor finally published his manifesto,

it was very clear about freezing fares and going for a hopper ticket.

The front page of the City Hall website clearly states

that the mayor is freezing fares in 2017, and then gives

details about exactly how it's going to apply.

But it won't stop some arguing that there should have been this

Do you think he should have been clearer, Clive? Let's be clear. He

has frozen the fares for every feather which he receives the fare

box. So all the fares he has control over, he has frozen in line with his

promise. But he should have been clear that it is all fares. Even

with travelcards, when he said about people struggling to say, he then

didn't say we are going to freeze them. The challenge here is for the

Government, who control the rail fares, to take the lead from the

Mayor of London and freeze the fares. We are getting an appalling

service. Don't forget, the Conservative mayoral candidate went

into the mayoral election saying they were going to put London's

fares up by 70%. But should the Labour candidate have been clear

that he was only going to put up TfL fares? He can only put up the fares

for which he has the powers of control. But Transport for London

had the impression that he meant all fares as well. The figure that has

been quoted is the figure that it would have cost TfL, had the

Government frozen fares in line with the Mayor's freeze on fares. That is

the 600 million figure that is being bandied around. So it is a bit

dishonest to suggest that that figure would cover the cost of

subsidising fares of private rail providers. Those be clear. Sadiq

Khan grossly misled Londoners. What he said during the mayoral election

campaign, he said, no ifs, no buts, no one will pay a penny more.

Nothing about travelcards or single fares. No one will pay a penny more

is what he said. It is not true. But he has gone on after the mayoral

election, where he is trying to excuse what he has done. He claimed

he didn't have the power over these other fares. He claimed it was

outside of his power to do a complete their freeze.

He has also made it clear since then that he knows that theoretically, he

could pay. Why didn't you point this out before the election? We all

pointed out that what he was promising was undeliverable, and he

got into a strap about it. For what reason? For financial reasons. He

said after the election that he didn't have the power to do a

complete freeze. This request by London travel watch shows that TfL

gave him advice that it was possible. It shows it can be done,

because it was done with the help of government money which froze the

rail element the previous year. He couldn't assume that that element is

going to be there, could he? If he had chosen to, he could have used

City Hall money to have a complete their freeze. That is what the TfL

paper advised him he could do. He chose not to do with that. He chose

not to keep his promise and tried to cover it up by claiming it was

impossible. Was he being disingenuous or was he ignorant when

he covered it up? I can't speak for whether he was ignorant on it, but

it is evident that when you make a promise about freezing fares, you

can only freeze those over which you have control. The increase on rail

cards is a government decision. It is for the Government to follow the

lead of the London mayor and freeze fares. The overground service is

part of TfL and it is frozen. If the Government were to hand over the

franchises of suburban rail to Mayor Khan, those fares would be frozen.

So you go and bring your friend. Sadiq Khan has now accepted he could

have frozen these fares if he had chosen to spend City Hall money on

it. He chose to break his promise. Now it's time for the rest

of the political news in 60 seconds. The cost of West Ham's London

stadium, almost entirely paid for by the taxpayer,

is to be investigated by City Hall. Mayor Sadiq Khan said "We need

to find out how on earth the transformation costs

were allowed to skyrocket, whether appropriate checks were made

before key decisions were made." The cost of the building has already

reached more than ?753 million. Staying with football,

and Lewisham Council has abandoned the controversial compulsory

purchase of land around Millwall FC had argued

the development could Lewisham Council said,

"Any decision that the council may take in the future will be

a wholly new decision." A very high air pollution warning

has been issued for London for the first time under

a new alert system. Warnings are being issued

at bus stops, roadside signs and tube stations,

under the new system set up Millwall season-ticket holder. But

we are not going to talk about that. Air pollution, very high alerts.

What difference will this make? It will draw public attention to the

problem we have, 9500 premature deaths a year due to air pollution.

So this is an important issue. We have got to review things like

decisions over future road-building and said, is this going to make air

quality worse and if it is, we have to rethink the decision. It is an

issue that is going. Just telling us that it is high, does that serve a

purpose? I agree that it is a problem. My wife is asthma --

asthmatic and I have three-year-old twins. Governments of both colours

have encouraged diesel cars over the years via the tax system. That has

been catastrophic for the country and for London, so we need action to

get those diesel cars off our roads. Would you support that? We do need

to review the use of diesel vehicles and yes, we need to prioritise

air-pollution. Thank you for being here.

Welcome back and let's get back to Donald Trump's travel ban

on refugees and citizens from seven mainly Muslim countries.

Earlier, the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, told ITV that a state

visit by President Trump to the UK should not go ahead

I think it would be totally wrong for him to be coming here while that

situation is going on. He has to be challenged on this. So until the ban

is lifted, you don't think he should come? I am not happy about him

coming here until the ban is lifted. Look at what is happening with those

countries. What will be the long term effect of this on the rest of

the world? Is this state visit going to become a matter of huge political

debate in this country? It would be anyway, but it is a temporary ban,

so Jeremy Corbyn is on safe territory. It will be over by April

and he is not due to come until summer. But there are three bands.

There is the 90 day ban on people coming from the southern countries.

There is the 120 day ban on refugees from anywhere in the world, and

there is the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees. So there may still

be some bans in place. But bear in mind the number of Syrian refugees

and refugees from around the world that President Obama took over his

eight years. There were years when it was not even up to 50 Syrian

refugees that were taken since the civil war has started. This is an

ongoing American policy. 12,500 Syrian refugees have come in the

last year. Before that, it was a hundred and sometimes under 50. But

they are reasonable numbers now, although not something America

couldn't absorb. Donald Trump is discovering that being a president

is different from being a business man. And Jeremy Corbyn has to learn

the art of leadership, having been a backbench MP, and has struggled to

do it, as we are about to discuss with article 50. With this, you have

to dramatise the politics of this, and this is what he has done with

that statement. Most controversial ever state visit now? I would

imagine so. Even regardless of any opposition from the opposition to

trump's physical presence in the streets, the presence of

demonstrators will be an international new story. If trump's

demands for the details of the visit are quite as extreme and as picky as

some of the Sunday papers have suggested, that could also be the

source of controversy. What do you have in mind? Isn't he anxious that

only certain members of the Royal Family turn up? He doesn't want a

one-on-one with Prince Charles. Who would, though! Some people may be

sympathetic on that. It is the one subject where he is in line with

British opinion. Playing golf in front of the Queen may be a higher

priority. We have to be realistic. Given the other people from around

the world that the Queen has played host to, like the Chinese president

and Saudi kings and the like, we have had a lot worse come to visit

than Donald Trump. Brexit - how serious our neighbour's problems on

this? Very serious, but they often are with Europe. Labour were splits

when we joined in the 70s, and still won general elections, in 1974 and

1975. There were all over the place in terms of the single currency.

Blair said one thing one day and the opposite the next day. Brown did the

same. Brown usually set the opposite of

what Blair said! They won landslide because they have the political

skills to put all of the pressure on the major government, even though

their position on the single currency was the same as major's. It

is about with Europe the art of leadership. You have to be a

political conjuror, you have to dissemble authoritative leak when

you lead a divided party over Europe, and Jeremy Corbyn to his

personal credit cannot dissemble, but he's not an individual person on

this. He's leading a split party in danger of falling apart, and you

need the skills of a political conjurer. Clearly self-evidently

he's not displaying it because we are talking about the chaotic split

which will manifest itself in that vote on Article 50. Labour and the

SNP and the Lib Dems too I would have thought will all put amendments

down to the short Article 50 piece of legislation. Do they have any

chance of succeeding? No substantial world is changing amendments. I

don't think Theresa May has much to worry about actually. I think if

anything the reason she's pushed the legal appeal is that it helps her to

have a big chunk of the media and a big chunk of public opinion worrying

that the popular will of last year is in danger of being overturned and

so even if it was a completely hopeless legal appeal, it generated

headlines for a week that as an incumbent Prime Minister trying to

execute believe vote suits you politically. I think it is a much

bigger problem for Labour, we've already seen some Shadow Cabinet

issues in the previous week. You have got to remember it's not just a

majority of Labour MPs that want to stay in the European Union, but a

majority of Labour constituencies, and a majority of labour macro

voters wanted to stay as well so we have three lines of division. One

amendment that might get through if it was called, and it is in the

hands of the Deputy speaker who will be chairing these debates, and that

will be an amendment that said regardless of how the Europeans

treat our citizens in Europe, all EU citizens here will be afforded full

rights to remain. That might get through. It may indeed and lots of

backbench MPs would backpack. We all know there will not be mass

deportations, it is not legal, it won't happen, it is simply a

negotiating tactic. I agree with those who say you shouldn't be using

people as a negotiating tactic, but the reality as it is the EU leaders

that are doing that because it's already been offered. The remain as

should be attacking the EU governments for not offering that in

return. Article 50 is the easy bit for her. I agree with other members

of the panel that she will get it through and the court case almost

helps her by getting an easy journey through Parliament, then it gets

really difficult. All of this has been a preamble and once she begins

that nightmarish negotiation, there will be opportunities for a smart

opposition to make quite a lot of the turmoil to come. Whether Labour

are capable of that, let's wait and see. The divisions in Labour are

nightmarish for them but by no means unprecedented. Arguably it was much

more complicated in the early 1970s when you had Titans on either side,

big ex-cabinet ministers... Tony Benn... Michael Foot, they were all

at it. The fundamental issue of in or out, and they won two elections,

so you have got to be really clever. But also how money more Labour MPs

will resign. We shall find out this week.

The Daily Politics is back tomorrow at midday and all

I'll be back here on BBC one next week.

Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.

a free five-a-side tournament that's for everyone.

For more information, go to the Get Inspired website.